dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers

Tue Aug 2 21:42:58 UTC 2011

>> Lets look at some issues here.
>>
>> 1) it's unlikely that a "normal" household with 2.5 kids and a dog/cat
>> will be able to qualify for their own end user assignment from ARIN.
>>
>
> Interesting...
>
> I have a "normal household".
> I lack 2.5 kids and have no dog or cat.
>
> I have my own ARIN assignment.
>
> Are you saying that the 2.5 kids and the dog/cat would disqualify them? I can't
> find such a statement in ARIN policy.
>
> Are you saying that a household that multihomes is abnormal? Perhaps today,
> but, not necessarily so in the future.
>

Yes I am saying a household that mulithomes is abnormal and with
today's and contracted monopolies I expect that to continue.  You are
not a normal household in that 1) you multihome 2) you are willing to
pay $1500+ US a year for your own AS, IP assignments 3) Internet
service, much like cell phone service is a commodity product and many
people go for the lowest price.  They are not looking for the best
options.

>> 2) if their router goes down they loose network connectivity on the
>> same subnet due to loosing their ISP assigned prefix.
>
> I keep hearing this myth, and I really do not understand where it comes from.
> If they get a static prefix from their ISP and configure it into their router and/or
> other equipment, it does not go away when they loose their router. It simply
> isn't true.

If they are using RA's to assign their network and the router goes
down they can loose the network as well as the router thus going to
link-local addresses.  This has been discusses ad-nauseum on this
list.  As I recall you played a big part of that discussion and it was
very interesting and informative.

>
>> 3) If they are getting dynamic IP's from their ISP and it changes they
>> may or may not be able to print, connect to a share, things like that.
>>
> Perhaps, but, this is another reason that I think sane customers will start demanding
> static IPv6 from their providers in relatively short order.
>

I hope this happens but I'm guessing that with marketing and sales in
the mix it will be another up charge to get this "service" and enough
people won't pay it that we will be fighting these problems for a long
time.  Some businesses will pay it and some won't but the home user
will probably not.

>> these 3 items make a case for everybody having a ULA.  however while
>> many of the technical bent will be able to manage multiple addresses I
>> know how much tech support I'll be providing my parents with either an
>> IP address that goes away/changes or multiple IP addresses.  I'll set
>> them up on a ULA so there is consistency.
>>
>
> No, they don't. They make a great case for giving people static GUA.

These are businesses were talking about.  They are not going to "give"
anything away.

>
>> Complain about NAT all you want but NAT + RFC 1918 addressing in IPv4
>> made things such as these much nicer in a home and business setting.
>>
>
> No, it really didn't. If IPv4 had contained enough addresses we probably
> wouldn't have always-on dynamic connections in the first place.
>

Debatable but not worth an argument.  Having said that the ability to
1) not have to renumber internal address space on changing ISPs 2) not
having to give a printer (or other device with no security) a public
IP address or run multiple addressing schemes and the security
implications there of  3) change the internals of my network without
worrying about the world are all important and critical issues for me.

I realize that these arguments are at layers 8 & 9 of the OSI model
(politics and religion) but that does not make them less real nor less
important.  They are not the same issues that ISP operators may
normally have to deal with but they are crucial to business operators.
 The DSCP/RA arguments are of the same criticality and importance.

> Owen
>

james